tac | Tac | Interpreter library

You can just call it this way as it recommends in the docs here

Example from the docs:

It sounds like you're looking for this:

You call a function with player_1=symbolchoose() and put the return value into the variable player_1. But when you define your function symbolchoose() you do not return anything.

So instead of calling pass at the end of your functions, use return player_2 or whatever variable you need.

See https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python-return-statement/#:~:text=A%20return%20statement%20is%20used,special%20value%20None%20is%20returned. or google return. This is important to use functions correctly!

You should have a crack at this yourself so I don't want to code an answer for you... but here are some of the pieces and the thinking.

You can check to see if a player has won immediately after they click for their turn, so at the end of the handleClick function.

A rough and ready way to do this would be to gather all of the "box" elements, then check all the rows, columns and diagonals.

Some of the pieces of this include:

• Use the document.getElementById method to get the "box" elements into variables (ideally an array or map to make it easy to refer to the elements in a logical, rather than manual, way, but individual variables would work)
• Test those variables for winning lines, so a crude example for testing one winning line would be (where box1, box2 and box3 were the box elements from the previous step, and processWin some function which did whatever was needed when a win happened):

You are in a FOR-LOOP and you try to add same "iv" multiple times to its "ttt" parent, so after one cycle "iv" already has a Parent....

Method rewritten (2nd time):

*_tac are built-in tactics used in apply-scripts. In particular, case_tac and induct_tac have been basically superseded by the cases and induction proof methods in Isabelle/Isar. As you mentioned, case_tac and induct_tac can handle ⋀-bound variables. However, this is quite fragile, since their names are often generated automatically and may change when Isabelle changes (of course, you could use rename_tac to choose fixed names). That's one of the reasons why nowadays structured proof methods are preferred to unstructured tactic scripts. Now, back to your example: In order to be able to use cases, you can introduce a structured block as follows:

Based on the suggestions from comments I replicated your scenario as follows:

Your .btn-1 styling is aligning the elements based on their text content, this can be solved by applying vertical-align: top; to that class.

Another small change that's worth making would be to change .item-board from inline-block to display: block, as that will prevent the width of the screen affecting whether the rows wrap.

The problem is in History.js: